Sanders Thread: Post you nerds!

If Bernie loses the nomination, I don't think it will automatically benefit Trump. Bernie voters aren't likely to swing to outright fascism.

On the other hand, the potential for catastrophe could lie in a significant amount of Sanders voters refusing to vote for Hillary against Trump.

I don't think Trump can win, regardless, because practically everyone under the sun who isn't white, male, and rich will vote for the other candidate.

The memory of the average American citizen being what it is, my main fear is that, if Bernie loses, his legacy goes right down the crapper as well. 8 years of Hillary would wipe out whatever potential for progressive change remains within the Democratic Party, guaranteeing Business As Usual straight up until the end.

Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."

It really isn't. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's BS claims about "chair throwing" and more legitimate death threat claims aside, Bernie Sanders would need a 70%+ blowout in California to get the nomination. Feasibly speaking, Clinton would need to be indicted to not get it.

I think the paranoia on the part of the Democratic leadership is more about: 1) fears that Bernie's continued presence diverts Clinton's attention from Trump and weakens Clinton by rallying the base against her, and 2) the fact that Bernie Sanders endorsed Wasserman-Schultz's primary opponent. She has a personal vendetta against him.

Quote:

On the other hand, the potential for catastrophe could lie in a significant amount of Sanders voters refusing to vote for Hillary against Trump.

Bernie is a stronger candidate, because he does much better with independent voters.

Quote:

I don't think Trump can win, regardless, because practically everyone under the sun who isn't white, male, and rich will vote for the other candidate.

Trump is the most hated candidate in the history of political polling. On the other hand, Clinton is the most hated Democratic candidate in that same history. I think more likely than not, Clinton would win, all other things being equal. Her turnout is likely to be better too, especially among female voters. But Trump is closing the gap, he's within the margin of error.

Virginia becomes a near-solid blue state, and Arizona starts swinging because of moderate Republican and Latino Republican discomfort with Trump. On the other hand, Ohio slightly leans Trump, and Wisconsin and Michigan are in Arizona's "we might swing" situation. The middle-class whites of those states are easily preyed on with "brown people and Obama are the cause of your problems," and like the small-business petit-bourgeois of old, the managerial class/labor aristocracy/new petit-bourgeois can easily give way to fascism.

What really pisses me off is the whole smugly sneering "We've got you right where we want you" attitude of the DNC.

Shit sandwich vs. giant douche is a choice no first world populace should ever have to make, but here we are.

If Hillary is ever going to be indicted, it should drop from the clear blue sky in a matter of weeks, i.e., no more than 60 days from today. No point springing it a week before the election when the delegates and most peoples' votes have been set in stone.

Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."

Hey guys, don't write off Trump again, just after he's crushed 17 establishment candidates and closing in on Clinton in national polls. In a race against Crooked Hillary he may just win. If this race has taught us anything it's that people are tired of the establishment this season, and Clinton is the face of the establishment if there ever was one. Also, I think we've already established that Trump himself is not a fascist, although some of his followers clearly have far right tendencies.

Also, just for the sake of a little foreign perspective, lots of Russian analysts (including non-state affiliated ones) are now convinced that if Clinton wins, WWIII or some other global calamity will break out. This, they say, is because she is a Wilsonian globalist, who will want to impose a new Larry Summersesque dictate on countries which refuse to come to heel, whereas Trump is a negotiator and a nationalist (they call him 'hard isolationist' but that's besides the point). Most of them also like Sanders, but say he has no chance against the establishment.

"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG

Hey guys, don't write off Trump again, just after he's crushed 17 establishment candidates and closing in on Clinton in national polls. In a race against Crooked Hillary he may just win.

He's more likely to lose absent a terrorist attack, but yes, he actually is somewhat close. And that's what frightens me and most Americans.

Quote:

If this race has taught us anything it's that people are tired of the establishment this season, and Clinton is the face of the establishment if there ever was one.

Sure, she's the Democratic party establishment. She is not the Republican establishment. Nor is Trump, Trump is a creature far worse. The living symbol of the dark side of the American psyche.

Quote:

Also, I think we've already established that Trump himself is not a fascist, although some of his followers clearly have far right tendencies.

As fascism is a tactic, not an ideology, I'd actually disagree with "Trump is not a fascist." Do you lead a fascist movement? A movement of majority middle-class nativism, with contempt for the democratic process? That sounds like a fascist to me.

Fascists come in all shapes and sizes, from Pinochet to Mussolini, Dugin to Tiso. Put Trump in a crisis scenario and see how he uses that mass movement, that will show you whether he can be described as fascist or "simply" an authoritarian liberal stoking the fires of fascism. Either way, why in god's name would I support that?

Quote:

Also, just for the sake of a little foreign perspective, lots of Russian analysts (including non-state affiliated ones) are now convinced that if Clinton wins, WWIII or some other global calamity will break out.

They should be more fearful of a Trump victory then, rather than Putin pushing Trump for god-knows what reason. Probably an easier target to rally people against.

Trump wants to use "tactical nukes" in the Middle East, nuclearize Japan and South Korea, and aired the idea of ground forces in Iraq in March. http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop- ... ria-220608 For every Robert Kagan or Martha Nussbaum, I can bring up a John Bolton or Newt Gingrich. This man is no dove. This man is more hawkish than Hillary Clinton, he is another Goldwater. Down to being temperamentally unfit to serve.

I should also add that your "foreign perspective" is not the norm. Hillary Clinton wins in literally every poll of foreign countries aside from one: Canada, where Bernie Sanders wins, probably because Canadians follow American news and thus recognize the name. My source on that isn't even American media, it's Telesur.

Quote:

This, they say, is because she is a Wilsonian globalist, who will want to impose a new Larry Summersesque dictate on countries which refuse to come to heel, whereas Trump is a negotiator and a nationalist (they call him 'hard isolationist' but that's besides the point).

Trump is nowhere near a hard isolationist. I'd probably even support Clinton against an actual one like Ron Paul owing to the latter's "kill it all" mentality towards anything the state does to help anyone and desire to reimpose the gold standard, representing crippling austerity as debt is repaid. I also am not an isolationist, I support an active role for America in the UN rather than cutting us off from the world and stoking nationalism. But at least I can respect Paul's views on foreign policy.

Trump is a negotiator, and you will get more negotiation out of Clinton than him. Libya was, in fact, a disaster. And her stance on Syria was poor judgment on her part, she is considerably worse on foreign policy than Obama. But at least she supports the Iran deal, Pacific relations as-is, and not using nuclear fragging weapons. She is a step down, he is a disaster in the making. In your guts, you know he's nuts.

Last edited by MissStrangelove on 23 May 2016, 23:17, edited 9 times in total.

Isolationism is a tactic that never pans out in American politics, and leads to a great deal of accumulated harm in a very short period of time.

Perspective: The Republicans managed to pin FDR to the wall when it came to staying out of WWII in exchange for not obstructing his WPA and other relief programs. Result: Pearl Harbor and a massive two-front war.

Not only that, but the result was the policy of active vigilance and engagement that got us Korea, Vietnam, and the never ending Middle Eastern quagmire. It also played a huge part in determining the career trajectory of "conservative Democrats" a la Bill, Hillary, and their coterie.

Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."

Newt does have a reputation as a hard edged deal maker (largely hype), and he's certainly the most acceptable Country Club Old Guard candidate this side of Kasich or the Bush of your choice.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if this deal has already been solidified Behind Closed Doors and is the main impetus behind more and more establishment Republicans getting on board the Trump train.

It's a classic "corral 'em, surround 'em with well vetted guardians, and let him take all the blame while we pull the strings" scenario. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Didn't work so good for the Prussian Junkers and the Imperial-era old guard.

Anyway, despite his presumed opponent being (and it makes me gag every time I type this) Hillary, I don't think it's enough. You can't ride to victory on the back of a rapidly diminishing constituency, no matter how violent, vehement, and visible their fringe elements are.

Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."

Newt does have a reputation as a hard edged deal maker (largely hype), and he's certainly the most acceptable Country Club Old Guard candidate this side of Kasich or the Bush of your choice.

He's actually pissed off most of the country club old guard, who forced him from the Speakership mostly for making them look bad with his philandering during the Clinton Blowjob Trial and his grandiosely insane "I am leader of the civilized forces of the world!" speeches. He's beloved by the neocons and Fox News though, and is acceptable to the Koch nexus for his "slash and burn" mentality.

I think it actually hurts him though. The only figures close to "as hated as Donald Trump" status are Newt Gingrich, Ted Cruz, and Hillary Clinton.

Quote:

Anyway, despite his presumed opponent being (and it makes me gag every time I type this) Hillary, I don't think it's enough. You can't ride to victory on the back of a rapidly diminishing constituency, no matter how violent, vehement, and visible their fringe elements are.

My fear is that being wrong. The demographic majority is dwindling, and to preserve their status they are turning to far-right nativism. They'll have worse turnout than the vehement anti-Trump voters, but Trump may be able to secure victory from them. I think he likely will if a terror attack happens, then Trump becomes "our glorious savior against the Islamic hordes."

Newt's status has been somewhat rehabilitated in recent years, thanks to one of those infamous "Come To Jesus" moments during the 2012 cycle when he met with Romney, apparently hashed things out, and was apparently even considered for a Cabinet position. These days, nary a Trump die-hard will know more about Newt than Fox News will feed them, and I don't remember Bill O' Reilly ever having a bad word to say about the guy.

Republican dirty tricks will likely surface a-plenty during this cycle, and I wouldn't be surprised to see recounts demanded in more than one district (or state). I have a feeling this is going to be the most hotly contested election since Bush-Gore (and possibly Truman-Dewey).

As to Hillary, yes, she's a definite "lady hawk" who will feel the need quite frequently to play "The President Wears Prada" and kick some lazy male ass around the room. Despite all the bluster (and it will be insufferable), I don't see her as eager to begin new conflicts so much as she will be unable to let go of the ones that already exist.

Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."

He's more likely to lose absent a terrorist attack, but yes, he actually is somewhat close. And that's what frightens me and most Americans.

It wouldn't frighten most Americans if a majority of Americans ended up voting for him though would it.

MissStrangelove wrote:

Trump is a creature far worse. The living symbol of the dark side of the American psyche.

Could be, especially if he's lying on things like trade and multipolarity and Assad and Qaddafi and Saddam. But Clinton is a known quantity, and at least partly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. Can't say the same for Trump, not yet anyway.

MissStrangelove wrote:

As fascism is a tactic, not an ideology, I'd actually disagree with "Trump is not a fascist." Do you lead a fascist movement? A movement of majority middle-class nativism, with contempt for the democratic process? That sounds like a fascist to me.

Was it you who said that it's Trump's supporters, not Trump we should worry about when it comes to fascism? I'm sure someone said something to that effect a little while back; can't remember who it was now.

MissStrangelove wrote:

They should be more fearful of a Trump victory then, rather than Putin pushing Trump for god-knows what reason. Probably an easier target to rally people against.

Nah; Putin saw/was told about Trump's lack of attacks on Moscow, and his support for the Russian Syrian operation, and decided 'heck maybe we can negotiate with this guy'. Same thing with most analysts here. They reason Trump's a businessman, whereas Clinton is an ideological crusader who reminds them of the horrible 1990s.

With regard to tactical nukes on the table and a nuclear East Asia, I think it's all part of his negotiating game; Trump drives a hard bargain from playing Trump: The Game (i.e. his life) all his life. Besides, he's even said recently that he would like to talk with Kim Jong Un. Perhaps he can get his buddy Dennis Rodman to help him out with that.

MissStrangelove wrote:

For every Robert Kagan or Martha Nussbaum, I can bring up a John Bolton or Newt Gingrich. This man is no dove. This man is more hawkish than Hillary Clinton, he is another Goldwater. Down to being temperamentally unfit to serve.

Sometimes I fear that all these neocons will get his ear and get him to change all his important, comparatively progressive foreign policy positions, especially now that it's time for the party to rally. However, I haven't noticed it yet. Just a few days ago he blew up on Morning Joe Coffee about Robert Gates being a bad secretary of state. Extremely satisfying to watch.

I should also add that your "foreign perspective" is not the norm. Hillary Clinton wins in literally every poll of foreign countries aside from one: Canada, where Bernie Sanders wins, probably because Canadians follow American news and thus recognize the name. My source on that isn't even American media, it's Telesur.

Agree with you there; here experts know who Sanders is; the public not so much I find. And of course no one, perhaps Assad and Putin aside, wants someone unorthodox and unpredictable like Trump; and it's not all innocent 'wow look at that fool' stuff either. Imagine all the national elites tied to the US establishment who sweat bullets when they hear Trump talk about NATO being obsolete or criticizing Fed policy or Saudi Arabia or saying the US might default on its debt; that's no joke for them!

Regarding isolationism, I think there is no way the US can retreat from the world; it's too powerful a country and has too much of an impact on global culture, technology, etc. But I would like to see less US troops and bases around the world, less US 'democracy' NGOs and color revolutions, and more pressures and strains on the American empire, and think Trump would either purposely retract it a bit, or inadvertently cause it to retract by getting into diplomatic scuffles with US allies with forcing them to pay for US protection.

Finally, Re: Gingrich, that would really suck. Trump needs a Washington negotiator, not an explosive divider like himself. Two bad-tempered hard-nosed dividers would be really bad I think. Plus I really thought Paul buried Gingrich's hopes of getting into the Oval Office in any capacity that time when he called him out on being a chickenhawk:

"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG

It wouldn't frighten most Americans if a majority of Americans ended up voting for him though would it.

He won't get a majority, his approval rating is ridiculously low. Most Americans report literally hating him. Most Americans also don't vote, only about half of the population does in presidential years and significantly less in midterms. In 1996 and during the 1920s it was even under half.

He might get a plurality, which is how basically every President's won since Truman.

Quote:

Could be, especially if he's lying on things like trade and multipolarity and Assad and Qaddafi and Saddam. But Clinton is a known quantity, and at least partly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. Can't say the same for Trump, not yet anyway.

On Saddam and Gaddafi: great, he takes positions that are extremely popular after the fact. That makes me so confident in him. Obama opposed Iraq from day one as well, and Jeb fragging Bush opposed Libya.

He does not support multipolarity at all, I'm not sure where you're getting that. He supports nuclearizing America's client states so we have to pay less money on their defense, that's it. I also have no idea what he'd even do on trade, considering he believes our wages are too high. These, like the "boots on the ground" comments on Iraq, are words from his own mouth in a nationally televised debate.

But Clinton being a "known quantity" is exactly the point. She is, in foreign policy terms, a "rational actor." You can plan around that. You can't plan around a man who has twenty different positions in any given day. I remember watching an episode of CrossTalk on RT of all things where the consensus was that Trump was more dangerous explicitly because of his unpredictability.

Quote:

Was it you who said that it's Trump's supporters, not Trump we should worry about when it comes to fascism? I'm sure someone said something to that effect a little while back; can't remember who it was now.

It was me. I do find Trump's movement far scarier than Trump the man. Trump's movement did not come out of nowhere, contrary to what the Republican leadership thinks. They are reaping what they planted in their party with the Southern strategy in 1968, and to some extent as far back as anti-Irish appeals to the Know Nothings.

Trump remains an egomaniac with a pathological aversion to losing face. He will inevitably face gridlock. When threatened, that movement can be used. Whether he uses it or not tells me whether he legitimately leads a fascist movement or is a simple authoritarian liberal who leads a movement that could instead easily turn fascist. And I would not support either one.

Quote:

Nah; Putin saw/was told about Trump's lack of attacks on Moscow, and his support for the Russian Syrian operation, and decided 'heck maybe we can negotiate with this guy'. Same thing with most analysts here. They reason Trump's a businessman, whereas Clinton is an ideological crusader who reminds them of the horrible 1990s.

Clinton is a status quo hack who will conduct things roughly like her husband. That is step down from Obama. That is not a serious decline. Bill Clinton's presidency on foreign policy was a mixed bag of "on the one hand, starvation sanctions against Iraq, on the other hand, Oslo."

Trump, on the other hand, has a long record of utterly insane foreign policy statements and is prone to ego-driven escalation. Even those he surrounds himself who aren't blatant hawks have shady associations, like Campaign Manager Paul Manafort being one of the heads of the "torturers' lobby" for innumerable CIA-backed African dictatorships. He may be better for Russia specifically, he has this strongman fetish around Putin. Basically, "Trump of the Tundra!!!" But he is uncontroversially worse for Latin America, the Middle East, and East Asia.

Quote:

With regard to tactical nukes on the table and a nuclear East Asia, I think it's all part of his negotiating game;

So, when Clinton says something you don't like, you take it for granted. When Trump says something you don't like, "oh he doesn't mean that," only focusing on the things he said that you do like. Do you see how silly this looks? It seems more like you want to believe in Trump due to personal respect, blind hatred of "the establishment" no matter their opposition, or simply buying into the cult of personality surrounding the man.

I assume anything either candidate says is an option that they might feasibly consider. The world's largest nuclear arsenal is too dangerous to take major risks with. And even if simply campaign rhetoric, that sort of rhetorical brinksmanship will provoke backlash and actual escalation. Considering this is a man who runs his companies like he's gambling in a poker game, and has gone bankrupt repeatedly, that is not a good sign.

Quote:

Besides, he's even said recently that he would like to talk with Kim Jong Un.

That's great. We've been talking with the North Korean leadership for decades, that doesn't tell me anything. Obama has sent numerous delegations, as did Clinton. Even Bush sent one, while refusing to allow South Korea's leadership (Kim Dae-jung) to begin detente. Trump outdoes Bush by saying South Korea should start a nuclear program with American help, a really awesome way to get WWIII to start in the Pacific.

Quote:

Just a few days ago he blew up on Morning Joe Coffee about Robert Gates being a bad secretary of state. Extremely satisfying to watch.

"This country is a mess. We need a new group with better thinking." Mmmkay. Again, this tells me nothing. He is literally saying nothing. And then he goes off into "let's cut our budget on South Korea/Japan." Which, to me, does not outweigh nuclearizing them, using nukes in the Middle East, and every other bit of stream-of-consciousness word vomit that comes out of his mouth.

Quote:

Imagine all the national elites tied to the US establishment who sweat bullets when they hear Trump talk about NATO being obsolete or criticizing Fed policy or Saudi Arabia or saying the US might default on its debt; that's no joke for them!

I sincerely doubt his Goldman Sachs board member financial advisor (Mnuchin) will seriously restore the Fed's authority to Congress, especially considering Trump's long record of bankruptcy bailouts from that same organization.

His NATO comments, again, do not outweigh his Goldwater-esque lunacy. And Goldwater himself was also skeptical of international treaty organizations like NATO. I'm sure that causes some discomfort for William Kristol, the Weekly Standard crowd, and others who are now backing a Romney third-party bid. I have just as much discomfort in Trump for entirely unrelated reasons, and even the Kristols of the world don't have the insane nuke fetish or authoritarian cult of personality that Trump does.

Quote:

Trump would either purposely retract it a bit, or inadvertently cause it to retract by getting into diplomatic scuffles with US allies with forcing them to pay for US protection.

I think he might inadvertantly cause a decline in our imperial power by alienating most of the world, sure. Most of the planet is afraid of him. Most of America's allies would balk, including ones without significant military presence. Francois Hollande has had some pretty harsh words to say about Donald Trump, and the fragging Pope's stance is "anyone but Trump." That's every devout Catholic country on earth. Ending American imperial status that way is a last-resort option for if the US becomes too dangerous, hence the breakaway in the first place. It would harm not only America's people, but the world's.

I do not expect a serious change in America's superpower status, Trump is nothing if not a great-power nationalist. His stance on Iraq in the '00s was "now that we're there we should totally loot their oil," I heard numerous interviews with him at that point in time. Hell, even his fans here compare him first and foremost to Winston Churchill.

Quote:

Plus I really thought Paul buried Gingrich's hopes of getting into the Oval Office in any capacity that time when he called him out on being a chickenhawk:

Nobody really pays attention to Paul beyond his libertarian niche. He mostly comes off as an ineffectual rambly figure, with weird fringe-right obsessions like restoring the gold standard. And the right loathes him for Paul's 2012 strategy being "swipe just enough delegates to force my son on as VP," thus acting as a stalking horse for Romney; though for my part I'd argue Gingrich or Santorum would have been worse than even the oh so Patrick Bateman-y man named Willard Mitt.

For the record though, Paul has referred to Trump numerous times as a dangerously authoritarian figure. He's likely to back Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, or maybe a third party Romney run.

Considering this could still easily turn into a five-way Frag with the Libertarians doing so well, Romney possibly running, and then if the right is divided three ways Sanders will run or people will feel more comfortable voting Green: Sanders/Stein > Clinton > Johnson > Romney > Trump. The only one I even had to think for a moment about was Clinton vs. Johnson, considering Clinton is somewhat better than any libertarian domestically but libertarians tend to be slightly better than the Democratic leadership on foreign policy. But: Johnson picked Bill Weld as his VP, who is an asshole and who supported Iraq before it turned sour.

My answer might be different if McAfee were on the ticket instead. I halfway liked him in the Libertarian debates, for his proposal to prosecute Wall Street via the bankruptcy courts just like dotcom companies were in 2000, and the un-leftist reason of cogently explaining what the corporate tax does and why it should be lowered. (It is a tax on the money a company has after the bigwigs are paid, not on the bigwigs' income and power which is the payroll tax. A high corporate tax legitimately is a tax on growth; I have always thought this is an issue the left doesn't understand.) But even then I think "McAfee wants to kill social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare vs. Clinton doesn't" is a significant difference, that would be very hard.

Oh, because I was doing some digging and bothered to actually look into it:

Trump supported both Libya and Iraq before each respective invasion. He said in 2002 that he supported the war build-up around Iraq. This is no different from the position of Hillary Clinton herself, right down to turning against it once it became unpopular. I'll only give him credit for having done so a bit earlier, a week after it was officially launched in 2003 rather than in 2005, at an Academy Awards after-party. So, I'm basically just giving him credit for being formerly friends with some Hollywood ultra-libs who ended up being right in their initial opposition to it, and taking a position that was already popular in his circle. Sources: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald ... -iraq-war/ and http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... aq-war-wa/

As far as Libya, exactly like Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney, his critique of Obama changed overnight from "we're not doing anything to stop Gaddafi! Obama is weak!" to "Obama shouldn't have done that, it's destabilizing the area!" Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... aq-war-wa/

So, he has literally come out against both only after that position became popular with the people he needs to pander to. "Hollywood/New York high society" for Iraq, "the public" for Libya once he'd seriously wanted to run for office.

Not only that, but unlike even Jeb fragging Bush he still supports the "surgical shot to take out Gaddafi." This is, again, no different from Hillary Clinton's stance, and considerably more hawkish than the average American opinion. Source: https://www.rt.com/usa/345509-trump-gad ... -surgical/

How anyone can view this man as any sort of non-interventionist champion of the Empire's provinces is well beyond me. His supporters are dupes, being taken for a ride by the world's greatest carnie.

What makes it even worse is that, if he launches some sort of action based on presumed popular support, he'll abandon it in a flash if that support doesn't prove to be there. In other words, we'll have REAL Benghazi scenarios to deal with that involve dozens or hundreds of lives rather than a handful.

Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."

The Bernie news is getting more and more intense. Possible third party run? Green candidate? Hmm.

I highly doubt it. Jill Stein is already the Green candidate, and Bernie Sanders will probably endorse Clinton at the convention unless there were explicit shenanigans somewhere along the way. Which he would be talking about right now to justify a break-off, and he's not. He's in negotiations to boot Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as DNC Chair and get Elizabeth Warren as VP.

Quote:

It would only make sense if Der Drumpf got booted out by the Koch Klan and had to run as a Libertarian (who else wants him?).

Certainly not the Libertarians, who have already had their convention and nominated Johnson/Weld. Both moderate Republican Governors, from New Mexico and Massachusetts respectively, in an explicit bid to win "never-Trump" support. The Kochs will fund Johnson to the hilt.

Quote:

If the Democrats split (and I wish they would but, of course, the timing is truly putrid), the Republicans have no reason to let go of Trump.

I only hope they do if the Republicans somehow split three ways, very unlikely as of this point. Then, yes, they're still spoiled more than the Democrats who would only be split two ways. If that occurred, I'd love a progressive break-off. Otherwise, if it's just a four-way race, it's at best even. And I think it would actively benefit Trump, Johnson takes more from Clinton than Sanders or Stein would from Trump. I have seen numerous Bernie people who would otherwise go Clinton in a two-way mash-up between her and Trump saying they're voting Libertarian.

Quote:

All they really need to do is put a weapon to his head to make him toe the line and, meanwhile, concentrate the real bulk of their energy on the lower ballot races.

That's exactly what they're doing with threatening to bolt over the blatant racist tarring of the judge in the Trump University case. They're using it to get him to keep to the teleprompter, because he says insane bullshit that makes his poll numbers plummet when he goes off it.

She got the nomination, indictment is literally the only way she won't be the candidate at this point and that's pretty unlikely. And she's from his party? Of course he supports her over Trump, and of course he's lending her his aid. Clinton did the same for Gore, Bush did the same for McCain. The only difference is they were quieter about it, because Obama is the first person since Reagan to leave office with high favorability numbers.

Quote:

Likewise, I don't see Barack having the cojones to remove Schultz. Probably a ton of backroom deals and high dollar secrets tying his hands.

No, the Clinton faction are hanging Debbie Wasserman-Schultz out to dry. Clinton has distanced herself from Schultz numerous times over the last month, and come down pretty hard on her. Schultz stepped her foot in it with the "throwing chairs" bullshit and she'll be used as a sacrificial lamb to placate Bernie's supporters.

Quote:

I wonder if Bernie really could split the Dems in two? I'd love to see a new progressive Socialist part emerge from the wreckage.

I would too, but not if it means spoiling Clinton and electing Trump. Maybe in a year when a fascist wasn't on the ticket. Or if the Republicans were split three ways. Otherwise what you see is Johnson eating at both, Trump slightly more. And Sanders eating at pretty much just Clinton. That is a recipe for Herr President Drumpf.

Quote:

The flipside is that we could end up with three, four, five parties that all get snarled up in a parliamentary system that makes Italy look like the rock of Gibraltar.

As long as you had proportional representation, that's a good thing, not a bad one. It fosters stability, by forcing coalition-building. Meanwhile it would much more democratically represent the population's actual ideals by preventing spoilage.

Last edited by MissStrangelove on 10 Jun 2016, 02:56, edited 1 time in total.

Which is exactly why I want Bernie to run as an Independent only if Trump is forced to do the same.

Trump won't be. Even Paul Ryan has come to heel. Trump has the nomination, the only question is whether or not Mitt Romney will endorse Gary Johnson or something.

As with Clinton, the only way Trump does not get the nomination is if he gets indicted. He's more likely to be than she is, but I'd still put it at quite a bit under 50%.

Quote:

You really think Schultz will catch a knife in the back? It's certainly possible. All's fair when it's time to court the votes.

I think she'll be ousted. The hatred against her is even stronger than against Clinton herself, and rightly so considering her brazen lying. I'm almost certain she's going to be hung out to dry, Bernie's people have said a big part of what he's negotiating for is a new DNC Chair.

Keith Ellison is one replacement who's been floated, likewise Elizabeth Warren if she's not given VP.